2018 REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE Maricopa Association of Governments | May 2018 APPENDICES MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE Appendix A: Methodology for Cost Estimating May 2018 Page intentionally left blank. Table of contents 1.0 METHODOLOGY FOR COST ESTIMATING __________________________________ 1 1.1 Purpose __________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 General __________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Cost Estimate Format _______________________________________________ 1 1.4 Capital Cost Estimates ______________________________________________ 2 1.5 O&M Cost Estimates ________________________________________________ 2 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE _________________________________ 3 2.1 General __________________________________________________________ 3 i Page intentionally left blank. ii 1.0 METHODOLOGY FOR COST ESTIMATING 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to present the methodology that will be used to estimate the capital and the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the MAG System Study Update commuter rail corridors. The cost estimates will follow the methodology discussed below to the maximum extent practical given that no conceptual engineering has been completed to date. Where no detail for cost estimating is available, unit costs on a major level such as route track mile, complete station, or other lump sum will be utilized. 1.2 General The cost estimates for the MAG System Study Update are based upon: Conceptual level design or less. Recent costs experienced or estimated for the commuter rail and freight railroad industries. Costs experienced on recent commuter rail projects. Unit costs obtained from major vendors, as appropriate. Federal funding sources and will follow Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration procedures. In addition, the following will be included with the cost estimates: A comprehensive list of assumptions and all supporting documents supporting line item costs. A rational indicating the justification for contingencies to be applied to each line item of work. Overall project cost as well as project reserve. 1.3 Cost Estimate Format The format of the capital cost estimates will include: Line item description for units of work by procurement/construction cost category. Unit of Measure. Number of units. Cost per Unit. Subtotal cost per cost category. Total cost for all procurement/construction cost categories. Line item description for cost categories based upon a percentage of procurement/construction costs. Total procurement/construction and other costs before add-on/contingency costs. 1 Cost of future planning, preliminary design, final design, construction, construction management, agency force account, commissioning etc., that will result in a complete operating commuter rail system. Contingency on Line Item Sub Total (and or each line item). Project Reserve (over and above Contingency). Grand Total per Corridor. 1.4 Capital Cost Estimates Sources for the costs include articles printed in the railroad industry press, bid costs, project cost estimates, Class 1 railroad projects in the Western United States, private industry projects, railroad typical “rule of thumb” costs (Class 1 railroads and regional and shortline railroads), and any other valid sources with railroad cost data. In some instances, where costs are a few years old, the costs are inflated to current year costs. It must be noted that many of our projects are “confidential” and the specifics of a cost estimate are not available for use on a different project or for distribution. Because costs are expressed in many different formats, the capital cost data will be converted to the most common factors available. For example, bridge costs are expressed in cost per square foot or cost per linear foot. Often, the length of a bridge is stated, but the square footage is not. Often, the cost per mile of a project can be calculated because only the total length and cost are stated. The average cost per mile of a project is useful as a “sanity check” on costs that are estimated during the early phases of a project. When developing cost estimates for a project, it is important to understand the difference between a current project and other projects. For example, track construction for a freight railroad that will need to accommodate many 135-car, 16,000 ton unit trains on a daily basis should cost more than track designed to accommodate a few freight trains and several commuter rail trains on a daily basis. Commuter rail costs differ as route characteristics, design, stations, service levels, and all of the other elements of a corridor or system differ. Knowledge of the differences is just as important as knowledge of the similarities when developing estimated costs. Capital Cost estimates are shown in Attachment A. 1.5 O&M Cost Estimates The O&M cost estimates will be based upon the operating plans and current costs for current U.S. commuter rail operations. The O&M cost estimates include a variety of factors, including all labor costs associated with the transportation, vehicle maintenance, fixed plant maintenance, security, administration, and support functions necessary for the operation of the transit service. Non-labor expenses include all supplies, parts, materials, vendor contracts, rentals and leases, insurance, user fees, utilities, and various expendables and other appropriate expenses required to properly and safely operate, inspect, service, maintain, repair, overhaul, market, and support the transit system. It is assumed that the annual costs associated with operations and vehicle maintenance would be similar in amount whether performed either by the commuter rail authority or under a separate contract. The O&M costs will be estimated from the annual revenue vehicle miles operated for the proposed service schedules. Annual revenue vehicle miles will be calculated based upon the 2 length and number of one-way trips required to operate each hour of each period of service at the specified headway with the specified consist length. For example, an hour of service at a 30- minute headway in each direction with a single vehicle consist over a 10-mile route would result in four one-way trips times 10 miles times one vehicle or 40 revenue vehicle miles. The annual revenue miles include consideration for the number of days per year during which weekday, weekend, holiday, and special service are operated. The annual revenue vehicle miles will then be multiplied by the average cost per annual revenue vehicle mile for the type of equipment and service being operated. The average cost per revenue vehicle mile is available for several U. S. commuter rail systems currently in operation. These systems all utilize locomotive hauled consists that are operated in push-pull fashion. Push-pull operations have a locomotive pulling the train in one direction and pushing the train in the opposite direction. In the push mode, the train crew operates the train from a cab in the leading car of the train. For the purpose of estimating the annual O&M costs, the average cost per revenue vehicle mile will be based upon the average cost per revenue vehicle mile for the commuter rail systems contained in the National Transit Database. The annual O&M costs and the commuter rail systems used for the development of the O&M cost estimates were costs for 2016 as contained in the 2016 National Transit Database. The commuter rail systems used included Utah’s FrontRunner, New Mexico’s Railrunner, Seattle’s Sounder, Minnesota’s NorthStar, Florida’s Tri-Rail, Dallas/Fort Worth’s Trinity Railway Express (TRE), San Diego’s Coaster, Nashville’s Music City Star, and the Stockton/San Jose Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) for LHC vehicle technology. The cost per vehicle revenue mile for these systems ranges from $8.37 to $30.99, or an average of $20.93 for these eight systems. The cost per revenue hour for these eight systems ranged between $289.71 and $1,222.41 with the average being $683.54. The average cost per vehicle revenue mile and hour for all commuter rail systems contained in the 2016 NTD is $17.28 and $545.65, respectively. The National Transit Database classifies the systems that use the new DMU vehicles as Hybrid Rail. The hybrid rail systems used to develop O&M costs included Denton County’s A Line, Austin’s MetroRail, San Diego’s Sprinter, Portland’s Westside Express Service (WES), and New Jersey’s River LINE. The cost per vehicle revenue mile for these systems ranges from $19.79 to $77.34, or an average of $38.72 for these five systems. The cost per revenue hour for these five systems ranged between $487.93 and $1,840.81 with the average being $901.54. The average cost per vehicle revenue mile and hour for all commuter rail systems contained in the 2016 NTD is $29.72 and $708.97, respectively. Operating Cost estimates are shown in Attachment B. 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE The cost estimate for the MAG Commuter Rail Study was generally based upon the following assumptions: 2.1 General Costs are based on quantities estimated from the project drawings at the conceptual level design or less. These drawings have not been updated since the 2010 Study, but have been re-examined to ensure that the track plans allow for the level of service proposed for both passenger and freight operations. 3 Costs are presented in 2017 US Dollars. Escalation to year of expenditure dollars is not included. Total cost for each segment of the study include estimates for construction of guideway, ballasted track, special trackwork, improvements to at-grade rail/highway crossings, stations, park-n-rides, terminals, support facilities, utility relocations, related street and highway modifications, ROW acquisition, vehicle purchase, soft costs, contingencies and an allowance for project reserve. The cost for the System Study Update includes the construction of the corridor from Union Station to each end-of-line station.